# Democrats and the child health care bill



## lowcountrycigars

Well now I understand. I wondered why, if democrats want so desperately to pass a bill that would give free health care to children, they would make it so completely impalpable to republicans?

Any family 85k in income or less??

Kids up to the age of 23???

Outrages taxes that would cause entire industries to crumble virtually overnight?

I asked myself why would they put incredible taxes on products that would either cause people to stop using them or create a black market when those products were to pay for their programs?

I kept saying to myself it is almost as if they want it to fail. weird!

Now I understand! The bill that currently supports low income families, who cannot afford insurance, runs out this month. The new bill if vetoed will cause those children to go without funding for health care.

So if Bush vetoes the bill it will make him look like he doesn't care about children. (Win for the Democrats!) If he does pass the bill it will make the republicans (Most of whom already support the bill) to look like they are completely fiscally liberal, thus losing the support from their base. (Win for the democrats!)That is why republicans jumped on the band wagon for a bill that is completely impractical. They didn't want to be seen as uncaring in an election year, regardless of the complete impracticality of the bill.

wow!!

So in reality the Democrats could give a darn about children or health care. The do care much more about power. They did this knowing full well that Bush would probably veto it. Knowing full well that children would go without funding, knowing full well it would give them the talking points they need for next years election.

They make me ill! Wake up America these people don't give a care about you, children or anyone but themselves. Same goes for the republicans who voted for this bill to save their own hides!

And they wonder why their approval ratings are in the toilet. We don't trust you anymore!! And with good reason!

http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=406107


----------



## glking

Well stated!


----------



## kjjm4

It does make you wonder what their real motives are. A straight up reauthorization of the old bill with little to no expansion would have passed easily and Bush would've signed it. It's a shame that the kids who actually rely on SCHIP for health insurance are going to get shafted.


----------



## Guest

kjjm4 said:


> It does make you wonder what their real motives are. A straight up reauthorization of the old bill with little to no expansion would have passed easily and Bush would've signed it. It's a shame that the kids who actually rely on SCHIP for health insurance are going to get shafted.


Or maybe not. Perhaps thecigar industry wll.


----------



## macjoe53

lowcountrycigars said:


> Well now I understand. I wondered why, if democrats want so desperately to pass a bill that would give free health care to children, they would make it so completely impalpable to republicans?
> 
> Any family 85k in income or less??
> 
> Kids up to the age of 23???
> 
> Outrages taxes that would cause entire industries to crumble virtually overnight?
> 
> I asked myself why would they put incredible taxes on products that would either cause people to stop using them or create a black market when those products were to pay for their programs?
> 
> I kept saying to myself it is almost as if they want it to fail. weird!
> 
> Now I understand! The bill that currently supports low income families, who cannot afford insurance, runs out this month. The new bill if vetoed will cause those children to go without funding for health care.
> 
> So if Bush vetoes the bill it will make him look like he doesn't care about children. (Win for the Democrats!) If he does pass the bill it will make the republicans (Most of whom already support the bill) to look like they are completely fiscally liberal, thus losing the support from their base. (Win for the democrats!)That is why republicans jumped on the band wagon for a bill that is completely impractical. They didn't want to be seen as uncaring in an election year, regardless of the complete impracticality of the bill.
> 
> wow!!
> 
> So in reality the Democrats could give a darn about children or health care. The do care much more about power. They did this knowing full well that Bush would probably veto it. Knowing full well that children would go without funding, knowing full well it would give them the talking points they need for next years election.
> 
> They make me ill! Wake up America these people don't give a care about you, children or anyone but themselves. Same goes for the republicans who voted for this bill to save their own hides!
> 
> And they wonder why their approval ratings are in the toilet. We don't trust you anymore!! And with good reason!
> 
> http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=406107


And this surprises you how?


----------



## calistogey

Have actually heard somewhere that suspending all expenditures for a certain occupation for a mere 3 months will be enough to cover the supplement.


----------



## Silky01

kjjm4 said:


> It does make you wonder what their real motives are. A straight up reauthorization of the old bill with little to no expansion would have passed easily and Bush would've signed it. It's a shame that the kids who actually rely on SCHIP for health insurance are going to get shafted.


:tpd:

I did read somewhere basically the same argument, that if Bush vetoes it, it makes him look bad and the dems good. It's freakin ridiculous what the ppl WE voted in try to do to us. I say we make a law that politicians can't run for office; get those ppl out of office. So letting the same families run (Kennedy, Bush, etc) year after year. They already got so much damn money, they don't know what it's like to actually "live" in America.

Make it a requirement that for every 5 public offices, 1 must be held by a farmer, construction worker, something that actually knows what life is like!
Sorry, went on a rant--but isn't that what this post is for:ss?


----------



## AAlmeter

lowcountrycigars said:


> So in reality the Democrats could give a darn about children or health care. The do care much more about power. They did this knowing full well that Bush would probably veto it. Knowing full well that children would go without funding, knowing full well it would give them the talking points they need for next years election.


You hit the nail on the head with that one. All any politician since the time of Van Buren (early Democrat who started their policy of pandering to the poor and uneducated for votes) has cared about is power. After almost 200 years of whining for the poor and buying votes with policies, iniatives, and spoils, they have yet to even come close to replicating the success and widespread prosperity seen in the country prior to their acceptance.

I hope Bush vetoes this, what's he have to lose? Time for him to grow a pair and stand up for some conservative ideals.



> Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
> 
> -CS Lewis


----------



## macjoe53

I posted this in another thread, but wanted to put it here also.

There was the interesting story on CBS Radio news this morning. Almost 8 billion dollars a year is being spent on "routine" office visits and unnecessary medical test every year. That is almost as much as spent on treating breast cancer according to the story.


----------



## Coffee Grounds

The Democrats just want to tax us to death so they can give handouts to their voting class so they can stay in power.

The want to take away our free markets and turn us into a socialistic country. If you say I am crazy then look at the bills they try to pass.


----------



## Bax

I don't think they want to tax anyting. I think they want to look good for the voters. NO politician in his right mind would be for higher taxes.

As you stated, this IS politics. The insurance reform is wonderful, it will be taken advantage of and will probably become like wellfare, a complete disaster. The projects in major cities were also to help the poor, and it became an inner city prison. There is NO politician, and no person in fact who shouldn't support health care for children. But there will be those who abuse it and ruin it for the people who really need it. IE...look at the disablialty payoffs in Califorinia. That's why the taxes are so high for everything in that state. Once the mess is started, no one wants to step in and fix it. 

This tax is mainly for cigarette sales, but the issue of cigar tax was brought up by the cigarette makers. Why are we being taxed and they're not type of thing. Then of course congress agreed and taxed everybody. 
So write congress all you like, it won't help much. It's just about written in stone. Taxes will go up, a black market will be created, and small business will suffer, not for the children, but to look good for the next re-election. 

All I can say is buy an extra humidor and stock up. Then you'll not have to worry about it. Think of a few hundred stogies as an investment that will surely go up in value on January 1st.


----------



## Spect

It's not simply a matter of saving a few hundred, cause lets face it... that wont last all that long for a few of us.:ss

The big problem here is going to be the economic fall out. All those 3rd world nations, who export almost exclusively tobacco, are going to be crushed! Not to mention the small business owners in our own country. The health and welfare of children is important, but not at the cost of destabilizing the South American economy. With the passage of this act we're essentially creating more need for the bill. Even if it is all :BS to make Bush look bad, it's another short sighted answer to a problem with wide reaching repercussions.

/end :sb


----------



## FriendlyFire

I think you send each 7 one of them one free Cigar tro smoke, maybe they will change there minds. They have no idea what Cigar's are.


----------



## c2000

If you can't afford your kids insurance then wear a jimmy cap from now on..


Jerry in Minnesota.


----------



## Corona Gigante-cl

lowcountrycigars said:


> Well now I understand. I wondered why, if democrats want so desperately to pass a bill that would give free health care to children, they would make it so completely impalpable to republicans?


I think you mean _unacceptable _rather than _impalpable_.

Anyway, 45 House Republicans supported the bill and eight House Democrats opposed it, so it's not a completely partisan issue.

Bush has promised to veto and the majority in the House was not big enough to override the veto, so it's unlikely that this version of the bill will become law.


----------



## Silky01

c2000 said:


> If you can't afford your kids insurance then wear a jimmy cap from now on..
> 
> Jerry in Minnesota.


Heck, that's what I say about abortion. You knew the consequences when you had a d**k in you; now you got to live w/em.


----------



## calistogey

Corona Gigante said:


> Anyway, 45 House Republicans supported the bill and eight House Democrats opposed it, so it's not a completely partisan issue.


Never really understood how these people are able to hold on to their seats when their record reflects that they voted against their own parties. Perhaps each party leader should work more on solidifying their bases regardless of whether they risk losing a seat or not. In addition, voters should really pay close attention as to how their elected representatives are voting.


----------



## 12stones

calistogey said:


> Never really understood how these people are able to hold on to their seats when their record reflects that they voted against their own parties. Perhaps each party leader should work more on solidifying their bases regardless of whether they risk losing a seat or not. In addition, voters should really pay close attention as to how their elected representatives are voting.


I don't care if they vote against their parties. It's when they vote against the wishes of the people that really pisses me off. The parties are completely about keeping their seats nowadays, so it's expected.


----------



## JaKaAch

Dems and Bush haters, repeat this as much as possible..
* It's for the children.*

If you tag this to any bill, law, regulation, etc... and you're against it, you must hate children.

Its what some call a wedge issue. You never talk about the details of said bill, law, regulation, you just pound on the wedge.


----------



## Bax

JaKaAch said:


> Dems and Bush haters, repeat this as much as possible..
> *It's for the children.*
> 
> If you tag this to any bill, law, regulation, etc... and you're against it, you must hate children.
> 
> Its what some call a wedge issue. You never talk about the details of said bill, law, regulation, you just pound on the wedge.


Exactly!


----------



## 12stones

JaKaAch said:


> Dems and Bush haters, repeat this as much as possible..
> * It's for the children.*
> 
> If you tag this to any bill, law, regulation, etc... and you're against it, you must hate children.
> 
> Its what some call a wedge issue. You never talk about the details of said bill, law, regulation, you just pound on the wedge.


Here's an interesting article that starts out saying the same thing:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/09/25/185410.php


----------



## GOAT LOCKER

Bax said:


> There is NO politician, and no person in fact who shouldn't support health care for children.


*Really?* Who's children should I support? I am already supporting my own and those of the "poor", now I gotta support someone else's? By the time I have put my daughter through college, I have no doubt I will be forced to support the children of people making more money than I do. America seems to have forgotten what personal responsibility is.


----------



## 12stones

GOAT LOCKER said:


> *America seems to have forgotten what personal responsibility is.*


*

:tpd: Amen, brother!! You've hit it completely on the head!*


----------



## SeanGAR

I think the idiots in power should quit stealing our money and pissing it away. If a parent isn't providing healthcare or food for their kids, the solution isn't stealing money from me to pay for their kids food or insurance, the solution is to sterilize the parents who can't support their kids, so they can't have more. 

Idiots like Hillary and the "its for the children" hogswallop make me gag.

Whomever gets in power damned well have cutting taxes significantly on the agenda or I'm going to start my own grass roots tax revolt.

People who blame Democrats for pissing away money haven't been paying attention to the 456 billion and counting that we've pissed away "you know where". All politicians are political whores out to make a buck off of hard working taxpayers. Its high time for another tax revolt.


----------



## SaltyMcGee

SeanGAR said:


> All politicians are political whores out to make a buck off of hard working taxpayers. Its high time for another tax revolt.


:tpd:

This is exactly right. Both parties are at fault here, but the partisan bickering that they get us to engage in masks the true problems. If we could just stop the petty Republican vs. Democrat crap we'd find we're not really all that far apart. Then the politicians would be nervous, because we could hold them *all* accountable.


----------



## oddball

SeanGAR said:


> ... All politicians are political whores out to make a buck off of hard working taxpayers. Its high time for another tax revolt.


+1000

The money I pay the govt. including federal and state income & withholding, along with property taxes, sales tax, etc. puts me on the shit end of the stick called *"socialism"* (more than 50%). And on top of that, the govt. is trying to systematically _take things away from me_, including cigars and firearms.

I am absolutely sick and tired of it.


----------



## RETSF

This is simply a stepping stone towards universal health care, as noted childern are getting older (age 25?). The minority will fund the program (smokers) so the majority of americans (non-smokers) wont complain if someone else is picking up the tab (taxing the minority). Unfortunately at some point the tobacco industry will be extinguished, the workers will be on welfare and unemployment but at least they have universal health care. So once the taxes paid to the federal Govt to support this program are diminished to the point that the 25 year old child cannot see the doctor what sin or non-green industry tax will be increased next: RV and SUV's? Beer, Sat/Cable TV, ammo and firearms. Yup the majority of american sheep will let the socialist congress increase selected segments of society to fund the "Universal heath care/C-hips programs" :BS:BS:BS


----------



## kvm

SeanGAR said:


> Its high time for another tax revolt.


Amen brother. :tu


----------



## 12stones

SeanGAR said:


> All politicians are political whores out to make a buck off of hard working taxpayers. Its high time for another tax revolt.


I completely agree with you, the problem is that we don't have the backing of the apathetic majority of American citizens.


----------



## macjoe53

You know, it's really a shame that politicians don't read this forum. If they did, maybe they would learn what we think.

* Not that they would care...*


----------



## WyoBob

I think I heard yesterday that Congresses approval rating is at an all time low---11%. Do they ever think maybe they're doing something wrong? Naw. As long as they get enough money from lobbyist, kickbacks from contractors and campaign donations from large corporations, they're in fine shape. They just need to spend a little money every 2, 4, 6 years to put b.s. ads on TV to fool the "sheeple" so they can get re-elected and they're all set to hop back on the gravy train.

WyoBob


----------



## illinoishoosier

Wasn't it..."by the people, for the people"?

Dems, Repubs, it doesn;t really matter. It's a job to them and they will do anything to keep that job. I mean where can I get a gig where I can be convicted of a crime, resign, and still receive a pension. (which , btw is about 3x what I make).

I work in the tax industry and see first hand what a screwed up mess DC has made. Unfortunately, taxpayers don;t care much when the gov't starts handing out free money. 

Stop making welfare a destination, and make it what it was intended to be, a stepping stone, a help....not a way of life.:2


----------



## calistogey

WyoBob said:


> I think I heard yesterday that Congresses approval rating is at an all time low---11%. Do they ever think maybe they're doing something wrong? Naw.


One interesting thing about this is that, while it is true that everyone in the country disapproves of congress as a whole, people seem to love their own respective elected representatives. If this wasn't case, they wouldn't continue voting for them and all of them would be one-termers.


----------



## AAlmeter

calistogey said:


> One interesting thing about this is that, while it is true that everyone in the country disapproves of congress as a whole, people seem to love their own respective elected representatives. If this wasn't case, they wouldn't continue voting for them and all of them would be one-termers.


I think a lot of people really don't have a clue. In my area and industry, which is heavily unionized, a lot of the guys I talk to will bitch about high taxes, gun rights, the fact that our soldiers are hamstrung (many are vets) in Iraq, etc...but will swear their allegiance to the left wing because that's what the union tells them to do. It is pounded into their heads at the meetings and in the mailings that if anyone besides a left winger is elected, Carnegie and Rockefeller will swoop down upon them, take their paychecks and their kids' lunch money.

Add to that the name recognition that many candidates and incumbents have. For example, the 06 Senate race here in NY, Hillary vs John Spencer. Who the hell is he?

Then you throw in the educated union members, welfare recipients, and political dependents who vote for their pay checks, and its easy to see why certain people win despite being the absolute worst choice.


----------



## AAlmeter

AAlmeter said:


> After almost 200 years of whining for the poor and buying votes with policies, iniatives, and spoils, they have yet to even come close to replicating the success and widespread prosperity seen in the country prior to their acceptance.


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jIpv5kDAEINrqxxrA77ciz1ub0KQD8RULLR00

If only I could be a few days ahead of the curve on the stock market... :hn

"Clinton said such an account program would help people get back to the tradition of savings that she remembers as a child, and has become harder to accomplish in the face of rising college and housing costs."

:r


----------



## Bax

GOAT LOCKER said:


> *Really?* Who's children should I support? I am already supporting my own and those of the "poor", now I gotta support someone else's? By the time I have put my daughter through college, I have no doubt I will be forced to support the children of people making more money than I do. America seems to have forgotten what personal responsibility is.


Trust me, you would be begging for help if ,God forbid, you ended up loosing your insurance and then you were told that your Daughter had cancer. It's easy to see this as you are now, but what if bad things happen?

True that people do have parents who are worthless slobs, but the children should not have to pay the price. I've had friends and family on both sides of this issue. I've seen the good and the bad of it.


----------



## ATLHARP

Corona Gigante said:


> I think you mean _unacceptable _rather than _impalpable_.
> 
> Anyway, 45 House Republicans supported the bill and eight House Democrats opposed it, so it's not a completely partisan issue.
> 
> Bush has promised to veto and the majority in the House was not big enough to override the veto, so it's unlikely that this version of the bill will become law.


True, but the real soul of partisanship will be displayed in the Senate. The bill itself is useless, it serves only to damage funding for Republicans in the future (Tobacco lobby funding). Republicans did this a couple years back with tort reform and hurt some funding on the Democrat's end with trial lawyers. I believe this bill serves a few purposes beyond just political embarrassment. Democrats are always hurting on the funding end, most of their money typically is soft money from high end "champagne socialists" who drop massive donations. That has only changed recently with Obama who seems to be pulling more hard money from the far-left.

Still Democrats can get the funding by taking matching funds (political welfare) to carry their message to American people.

ATL


----------



## GOAT LOCKER

Bax said:


> Trust me, you would be begging for help if ,God forbid, you ended up loosing your insurance and then you were told that your Daughter had cancer.


No doubt, but does that give me the right to steal money from you? The world is full of tragedy. Why is everyone suddenly "entitled" to the best medical care (someone else's) money can buy?


----------



## SeanGAR

GOAT LOCKER said:


> No doubt, but does that give me the right to steal money from you? The world is full of tragedy. Why is everyone suddenly "entitled" to the best medical care (someone else's) money can buy?


Correct.

Cases where people require expensive care are best handled locally with people raising money and hospitals/physicians providing care at reduced cost.

Having some government agency with highly-paid, incompetent political appointees running it (think FEMA) to "take care of the children" is just a waste of money.


----------



## Bax

GOAT LOCKER said:


> No doubt, but does that give me the right to steal money from you? The world is full of tragedy. Why is everyone suddenly "entitled" to the best medical care (someone else's) money can buy?


Of corse not, I'm just saying it's tuff to draw a line. But, they must be drawn. I wish I had better answers and wish even more we had better politicians.


----------



## RETSF

There is nothing free, someone has to pay for it. We are the government and we will end up paying for it through taxe increases. As stated before the socialists in congress are targeting a minority because the sheep in this country dont care about it right now since it dosen't affect them. Once the tobacco industry fails, unemployment goes up, another segment of society will be targeted. Not to mention the poor medical treatment you will recieve. Hmmmmm Government run HMO: In order for the government to cover your medical you will have to see Dr. X, in 6 months because of the waiting list and your medical issue is not important enough yet to put you higher on the list. Yeh you'll be able to use the emergency room if its a matter of life and death - which probably could have been prevented from reaching that level, but no matter because your'er not going to pay the medical bill the government is. Gotta love a socialist congress, they can really look out for us that don't know squat. I'm really looking forword to paying more and more taxes to the government for another social bandaid. I'm really looking forward to having the federal government mandating to me how to live, when I can see a doctor. Lifs really going to be great. NOT!!!!!! :hn


----------



## macjoe53

If the democrats had their way 80 percent of the money you make would go to the government who would then distribute it to people too lazy to go out and work themselves but smart enough to vote democrats into office who will keep ripping the money away for hard working citizens to give to the asshats.


----------



## oddball

_Pyramid Scheme_-
"a non-sustainable business model that involves the exchange of money primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, usually without any product or service being delivered."

Not exactly the definition of this bill, but the result will be the same.
This bill is not for the underprivileged children. It is aimed at Middle American families with "children" up to _25 years old_. 
This is the first strike for socialized health care, and I don't believe for a nano-second that the federal government can dispense this properly in a responsible manner. _No way, no how_.

This is a junk bill and needs to be revised into a sensible version.
Of course, IMHO.


----------



## Mister Moo

*"You" and the child health care bill:*

If you didn't already smoke fine cigars there is an 90% certainty you wouldn't have anything to say about this bill based on my observation of friends/colleagues, dems and reps, who don't give a damn about cigar taxes. Might as well rename the thread "You and Cigar Taxes."

The only reason the press is on the bill revision is because one party may end up looking more inept than the other in the public eye. The "debate", in these terms, should be taken as an insult to children, taxpayers and (finally) cigar smokers.


----------



## ATLHARP

Mister Moo said:


> *"You" and the child health care bill:*
> 
> If you didn't already smoke fine cigars there is an 90% certainty you wouldn't have anything to say about this bill based on my observation of friends/colleagues, dems and reps, who don't give a damn about cigar taxes. Might as well rename the thread "You and Cigar Taxes."
> 
> The only reason the press is on the bill revision is because one party may end up looking more inept than the other in the public eye. The "debate", in these terms, should be taken as an insult to children, taxpayers and (finally) cigar smokers.


Indeed,

I would still say plenty about it, especially when the bill is a clear attempt to spread inept and pathetic Socialized Medicine. The purpose of this bill is to get more people dependent on the government for their health care. The bill's expansion is to extend entitlement coverage to those who are already have private coverage. It serves 4 purposes:

1. It seeks to get middle class Americans tied up in a government entitlement. A plus for idiot socialists!
2. It seeks to damage the private health care industry by proposing an entitlement that will pull more Americans from private coverage.
3. It will seek to embarrass Republicans by making them appear heartless and cruel for opposing the bill.
4.It will further damage the tobacco industry by making them foot the bill for an entitlement that will fail due to its projected shortfall of 4 billion dollars a year. (The shortfall will also be the Republicans' fault too!)

Indeed, the Democrats already pulled out the "cancer boy" ploy(If you don't know who "cancer boy" is, go see "Thank You For Smoking") for their radio address rebuttal over the weekend. This issue is pure crap done by liberals who are increasingly useless and irrelevant in a nation that finds them odious at best(15% approval rating!). So it's not surprising to find them demonizing at length like the partisan hacks they are. I would oppose this bill on principle for the simple fact that it is unconstitutional and also will in effect do more damage to our health care system than good. Socialized medicine is a cancer and folly at best; it serves no other purpose than to deprive people of their God given right to make decisions for their own health and well-being (i.e. Life Liberty, Property). I doubt this will do much good for Democrats, they are already virtually seen universally as dupes and schmucks, so this issue will do little to have people think of them any better. Don't worry "cancerboy" still loves'em

ATL


----------



## Silky01

And the senate just passed the bill . . . Hopefully Bush wasn't lying and he'll veto it.


----------



## GOAT LOCKER

ATLHARP said:


> The purpose of this bill is to get more people dependent on the government for their health care.


And it won't stop with this bill or health care. The goal is for people to be dependant on entitlements for almost everything in their life.


----------



## ATLHARP

GOAT LOCKER said:


> And it won't stop with this bill or health care. The goal is for people to be dependent on entitlements for almost everything in their life.


True,

Liberalism is slavery. Dependency on government is servitude of the worst kind. It is a lie perpetrated to impoverish and create hopelessness and blame on people who have the ability and means to improve their lives, but refuse to do so. Nothing is so addictive like an excuse to fail. Liberalism is the means to an excuse to blame somebody else for their own folly and laziness. The ironic thing is the government isn't much better and once it's own folly and laziness is implemented, it is hard to rid yourself of it. Freedom surrendered is Freedom forever lost........:2

ATL


----------



## Mister Moo

uncballzer said:


> ...Hopefully Bush wasn't lying and he'll veto it.


Of course he will - which was my point. The bruhaha is for talking points, not legislation.


----------



## EJWells

I'm sure they realize that they will be hurting this great passion of ours. Also, not to mention that they will be putting many B&M's out of business. Come on...who's going to pay $9.00 for a Padron Londres, if this gets passed!


----------



## Mister Moo

EJWells said:


> I'm sure they realize that they will be hurting this great passion of ours. Also, not to mention that they will be putting many B&M's out of business. Come on...who's going to pay $9.00 for a Padron Londres, if this gets passed!


Canadians.


----------



## ATLHARP

Mister Moo said:


> Canadians.


God is that true.....that or Lion fans.:bn

ATL


----------



## Bax

ATLHARP said:


> Nothing is so addictive like an excuse to fail.
> ATL


It's sad, but very true.


----------



## Addiction

illinoishoosier said:


> I mean where can I get a gig where I can be convicted of a crime, resign, and still receive a pension.


 I'm pretty sure that most people who aren't law enforcement officials or military personal will still recieve thier pension after being convicted of a crime. Not take away from anything else you said however.......


----------



## illinoishoosier

Addiction said:


> I'm pretty sure that most people who aren't law enforcement officials or military personal will still recieve thier pension after being convicted of a crime. Not take away from anything else you said however.......


guess I should have added that I pay into..


----------



## Corona Gigante-cl

I think guaranteeing health care for all its citizens is a legitimate function of government: the United States is the only one of all the major industrialized countries not to do so. I think it's a far more legitimate use of government funds than huge subsidies to the energy, agricultural, pharmaceutical, and especially the “defense” industries. Just my $0.02.

Funding health care on a specific sales tax is a thoroughly pusillanimous, half-assed measure, but I wouldn’t celebrate too much if and when the President keeps his promise to veto this bill (as he undoubtedly will—“freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose”). The issue will be back again mid-2009 and with a Democratic President and Democratic majorities in both houses of congress, it’ll be guaranteed to pass. Hopefully by then, they'll have figured out a better way to fund it.


----------



## Seanohue

Wow, I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but I just read this:

http://www.gov.state.md.us/pressreleases/071001.html

Apparently, states are bring a federal case against the President's power to veto this bill. ARE YOU F***ING KIDDING ME??????? Denying a fundamental point in the check and balance system this country was founded on? Anarchy anyone?


----------



## glking

It's the liberal democrat way.

If you can't win.....SUE SOMEBODY!


----------



## GOAT LOCKER

Corona Gigante said:


> I think guaranteeing health care for all its citizens is a legitimate function of government


Let's not stop there! Government can help in every part of our life!

I think guaranteeing housing for all its citizens is a legitimate function of government
I think guaranteeing nutritious meals for all its citizens is a legitimate function of government
I think guaranteeing a satisfying, high paying job for all its citizens is a legitimate function of government
I think guaranteeing college education for all its citizens is a legitimate function of government
I think guaranteeing happiness for all its citizens is a legitimate function of government
I think guaranteeing fill in the blank for all its citizens is a legitimate function of government

Well, you can't have that, but if you're an American citizen you are entitled to:

a heated kidney shaped pool, 
a microwave oven--don't watch the food cook, 
a Dyna-Gym--I'll personally demonstrate it in the privacy of your own home, 
a king-size Titanic unsinkable Molly Brown waterbed with polybendum, 
a foolproof plan and an airtight alibi, 
real simulated Indian jewelry, 
a Gucci shoetree,
a year's supply of antibiotics, 
a personally autographed picture of Randy Mantooth 
and Bob Dylan's new unlisted phone number,
a beautifully restored 3rd Reich swizzle stick,
Rosemary's baby,
a dream date in kneepads with Paul Williams, 
a new Matador, a new mastodon, 
a Maverick, a Mustang, a Montego, 
a Merc Montclair, a Mark IV, a meteor, 
a Mercedes, an MG, or a Malibu, 
a Mort Moriarty, a Maserati, a Mac truck,
a Mazda, a new Monza, or a moped, 
a Winnebago--Hell, a herd of Winnebago's we're giving 'em away,
or how about a McCulloch chainsaw, 
a Las Vegas wedding, 
a Mexican divorce, 
a solid gold Kama Sutra coffee pot, 
or a baby's arm holding an apple? 
:chk:chk:chk:r


----------



## Blueface

Fear not guys.
If that felmale impersonator Hillary gets elected, she has it ALL figured out.

BTW, how many of us were alive 16 yrs ago and recall that healthcare platform and all the reform she was going to do if her hubby was elected?
Are we to have forgotten that by now so she can use it again as new news?

Oh, that's right. Not her fault. Darn Bush again! Has got to be his fault.
Been raining all day in Florida again. Been raining for a week or so now. Darn Bush!


----------



## dennis569

GOAT LOCKER FOR PRES. !!!
I'm going to vote for whomever is giving me the most free shit.


----------



## yamaha6000

GOAT LOCKER said:


> Let's not stop there! Government can help in every part of our life!
> 
> I think guaranteeing housing for all its citizens is a legitimate function of government
> I think guaranteeing nutritious meals for all its citizens is a legitimate function of government
> I think guaranteeing a satisfying, high paying job for all its citizens is a legitimate function of government
> I think guaranteeing college education for all its citizens is a legitimate function of government
> I think guaranteeing happiness for all its citizens is a legitimate function of government
> I think guaranteeing fill in the blank for all its citizens is a legitimate function of government
> 
> Well, you can't have that, but if you're an American citizen you are entitled to:
> 
> a heated kidney shaped pool,
> a microwave oven--don't watch the food cook,
> a Dyna-Gym--I'll personally demonstrate it in the privacy of your own home,
> a king-size Titanic unsinkable Molly Brown waterbed with polybendum,
> a foolproof plan and an airtight alibi,
> real simulated Indian jewelry,
> a Gucci shoetree,
> a year's supply of antibiotics,
> a personally autographed picture of Randy Mantooth
> and Bob Dylan's new unlisted phone number,
> a beautifully restored 3rd Reich swizzle stick,
> Rosemary's baby,
> a dream date in kneepads with Paul Williams,
> a new Matador, a new mastodon,
> a Maverick, a Mustang, a Montego,
> a Merc Montclair, a Mark IV, a meteor,
> a Mercedes, an MG, or a Malibu,
> a Mort Moriarty, a Maserati, a Mac truck,
> a Mazda, a new Monza, or a moped,
> a Winnebago--Hell, a herd of Winnebago's we're giving 'em away,
> or how about a McCulloch chainsaw,
> a Las Vegas wedding,
> a Mexican divorce,
> a solid gold Kama Sutra coffee pot,
> or a baby's arm holding an apple?
> :chk:chk:chk:r


:tpd: You are a very smart man. The government isn't here to take care of us, it is up to us to take care of ourselves. Nothing more greedy than someone thinking they deserve "free" health care.


----------



## borndead1

Seanohue said:


> Anarchy anyone?


Sounds good to me.


----------



## WyoBob

Blueface said:


> Fear not guys.
> BTW, how many of us were alive 16 yrs ago and recall that healthcare platform and all the reform she was going to do if her hubby was elected?


Did you notice that Hillary pretty much forgot about health care since that time? Turns out the HC industry contributed major bucks to her.

WyoBob


----------



## Bigwaved

Seanohue said:


> Wow, I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but I just read this:
> 
> http://www.gov.state.md.us/pressreleases/071001.html
> 
> Apparently, states are bring a federal case against the President's power to veto this bill. ARE YOU F***ING KIDDING ME??????? Denying a fundamental point in the check and balance system this country was founded on? Anarchy anyone?


Out of curiosity, does the use of signing statements cause you to have the same feeling of a "work around" to the checks and balances? I am not attempting to insight outrage or "stir up the pot" here. I truly do want to know how you feel about this practice.


----------



## Kayak_Rat

Bigwaved said:


> Out of curiosity, does the use of signing statements cause you to have the same feeling of a "work around" to the checks and balances? I am not attempting to insight outrage or "stir up the pot" here. I truly do want to know how you feel about this practice.


I think this is just ignorant. A presidents power involves veto.....not veto and be overuled. Anything they can do to make others look bad and themselves look better.


----------



## Bigwaved

Kayak_Rat said:


> I think this is just ignorant. A presidents power involves veto.....not veto and be overuled. Anything they can do to make others look bad and themselves look better.


Do you think signing statement is ignorant or my question or the court case? My question was centered around the practice of adding a signing statement, not the veto at all. I know this is a bit off the specific topic, but it sort of goes along with the checks and balance part of the post I was referencing. A presidential veto can be overruled by a super majority vote, correct? I believe this works well.


----------



## GOAT LOCKER

Bigwaved said:


> Out of curiosity, does the use of signing statements cause you to have the same feeling of a "work around" to the checks and balances? I am not attempting to insight outrage or "stir up the pot" here. I truly do want to know how you feel about this practice.


Each "signing statement" must be looked at individually. All recent presidents have used them. In many recent cases, they have involved a power struggle between the Executive and Legislative branches. I know you didn't ask me, but no, I'm not outraged by this. Challenging the constitutional authority of a Presidential veto is a joke. No doubt there will be some hand picked judge who will support it, but I suspect the USSC will strike it down 7-0, if it makes it that far.


----------



## Bigwaved

GOAT LOCKER said:


> Each "signing statement" must be looked at individually. All recent presidents have used them. In many recent cases, they have involved a power struggle between the Executive and Legislative branches. I know you didn't ask me, but no, I'm not outraged by this. Challenging the constitutional authority of a Presidential veto is a joke. No doubt there will be some hand picked judge who will support it, but I suspect the USSC will strike it down 7-0, if it makes it that far.


Actually, I am happy that you responded, E. I welcome anyone's opinion. I was not trying to say that signing statements were exclusive to any presidency. I merely want to know if this seemed like a way around the checks and balances. As far as the veto issue, in my opinion, the case presented may not have merit, but the ability to challenge something constitutionally does. I am not sure if anarchy is a leap I would make by someone attempting to do so, regardless of their motives.


----------



## Corona Gigante-cl

Seanohue said:


> Wow, I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but I just read this:
> 
> http://www.gov.state.md.us/pressreleases/071001.html
> 
> Apparently, states are bring a federal case against the President's power to veto this bill. ARE YOU F***ING KIDDING ME??????? Denying a fundamental point in the check and balance system this country was founded on? Anarchy anyone?


Can someone explain to me how you can interpret the linked press release to describe "a federal case against the President's power to veto," because I just don't see it.

According to the press release, the case, brought by a coalition of states (Arizona, California, Illinois, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Washington, and now Maryland) was brought _to pursue legal challenges against new rules [issued in August by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services] that effectively prevent states from expanding health coverage for children through the federal State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)._

The litigation alleges that these rules _exceed the statutory authority set forth in Title XXI of the Social Security Act. It also argues that the federal Administrative Procedures Act was violated because CMS implemented the new rules without an opportunity for public comment. The Act mandates that the public should be given notice and a chance to comment._

Nothing at all to do with the President's right to veto that I can see.


----------



## Da Klugs

Health Care issues didn't start with this election cycle or with one party or another. No one is going to solve them anytime soon.

A few things from my perspective:

Health Insurance has evolved into heath care. Never a good idea in the context of folks being responsible with their utilization of services and cost is a concern.

Health Care premiums are out of wack with wages. An example from an employers perspective:

Current Premiums for employees in our state:

Single: $ 325 / Month
Family of 4: $ 1450 / Month

Translate that into an hourly cost @ 50 weeks worked @ 40 hrs = 2000 hours and you get the health insurance load per hour per employee...

Single: $ 1.95 / hr
Family of 4: $ 8.70 / hr

One of the may reasons that lower paying jobs get "outsourced". The consumer/taxpayer ultimately pays for all salary and benefits provided by any private or public entity in the US. They keep voting with their debit cards at Walmart and the like to buy foreign made goods at lower prices overtly or inadvertently voting for less funding of US benefits. If you want to assess a "fee" for health care, homeland security, etc, the only rational way to find $$$ is to tax the importation of goods. It becomes the equivalent of payroll taxes/employer paid health premiums regarding a nationally subsidized plan.

The last refuge of "fully paid" health and retirement benefits by employers remains for unionized workers (See what GM and Goodyear did this year with the retirees .. it's a dam that will break soon), Public school teachers and Federal, State and local government workers. Every other significant segment of our evolving economy has been forced to make changes/eliminate these benefits to stay in business in the face of low cost competition. If a reasonable portion of the premiums were paid by these folks, might go a long way toward funding new initiatives. Probably not a real popular item for any politician who wants to get elected to promote though.  Throw in "public pensions" and now you are talking real money. Same caveat as before... lots of dependent public employee/voters suckling at this teat.

Use of illegal labor in the US and the lack of payment of SS and income taxes by their employers is also a large contributor to the shortage of funding. Cynically the argument centers on the wrong party... the illegal workers. Tougher enforcement on employers is a reasonable alternative that might actually accomplish something.

It is disheartening that the sole purpose of these debates in our government over health care is "political". Real solutions seem beyond a political compromise.


----------



## glking

Good point.

I don't know about all the companies, but I do know that for GM, the cost of healthcare is larger than the cost of raw materials for each car produced!


----------



## Bigwaved

To add to your post, Dave, the yearly increases in healthcare are changing the way contracts are being bargained regarding public teachers and many government employees. Those benefits are not being maintained at previous levels.


----------



## Txdawg

Bax said:


> Of corse not, I'm just saying it's tuff to draw a line. But, they must be drawn. I wish I had better answers and wish even more we had better politicians.


Well you can start drawing the line by determining whether or not you are a legal citizen of the United States! I know it's off subject but not really when you look at the whole conversation here. Someone else said it earlier, welfare should be a helping hand not a way of life and it should never go to someone not here legally.


----------

